Originally posted by kingairta:
To me it looked more like he set the ball on the ground as he hopped up thinking the play was good.
To me he lost control of the ball when it hit the ground.
There are 361 users in the forums
Originally posted by kingairta:
To me it looked more like he set the ball on the ground as he hopped up thinking the play was good.
Originally posted by kingairta:
To me it looked more like he set the ball on the ground as he hopped up thinking the play was good.
Originally posted by HessianDud:Originally posted by Tigerlaw:Originally posted by HessianDud:
it was a catch.
Do you know what a conclusory statement is?
This is the NFL's reason it wasn't a catch:
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
anyone can see that it was a catch. i know what the rule says, and i know that the refs called it right. but i haven't heard anyone defend it as a just application of the rule, and I don't think you can.
Just cause "its the rule" doesn't mean anything. Rules are changed all the time; every season every sports league tweaks their rules. The point is fair competition.
Originally posted by Rsrkshn:Originally posted by Tigerlaw:Originally posted by zozell:
I think the main difference between those two plays is this:
On Gores play, his feet work planted on the ground when he made the catch. Once he caught it and he had posession, it was a TD.
On Johnsons play he caught it in the air, and therefore needed to maintain possession throughout the entire process of catching the ball in order for it to be a catch.
That's what someone explained to me at least. I think it's bs though. Detroit clearly should have been 1-0 today.
I agree with this explanation.
The rule that comes into play is only invoked when you go to the ground. Gore never went down. He had the TD as soon as he had possession
Here is the infamous rule:
This is the NFL's reason it wasn't a catch:
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
I posted this on another tread. It belongs here. It aslo gives you the correct result as most people feel in their gut:
"OK. I'll bite.
I still don't understand why it wasn't a catch. And a TD.
Read the rule again: "he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground". You do know that both of the receiver's feet his butt plus both knees hit the turf while he had grasp of the ball in his extended hand? Player is down when a knee hits the ground. Look at the replay. BOTH knees AND butt hit the ground; CJ had possession AND control at that time. It's only after that when he brought his hand down and slammed the ground that the ball popped out. Too late. He HAD CONTROL AFTER HE TOUCHED THE GROUND. The officials got the call wrong and everybody just went along with it.
Now you could say that he was bobbling the ball as he was coming down and did not have control. But I don't think that that was the case, nor was that the ruling: He caught the ball with both hands, both feet down, switch the ball to one hand with a firm grasp, knees hit the ground, ball in control, play over. THEN the hand with ball firmly in grasp hits the ground and ground causes a fumble.
It was legitimately a TD UNDER THE RULES as written. The Lions got robbed."
Originally posted by Rsrkshn:Originally posted by Tigerlaw:Originally posted by zozell:
I think the main difference between those two plays is this:
On Gores play, his feet work planted on the ground when he made the catch. Once he caught it and he had posession, it was a TD.
On Johnsons play he caught it in the air, and therefore needed to maintain possession throughout the entire process of catching the ball in order for it to be a catch.
That's what someone explained to me at least. I think it's bs though. Detroit clearly should have been 1-0 today.
I agree with this explanation.
The rule that comes into play is only invoked when you go to the ground. Gore never went down. He had the TD as soon as he had possession
Here is the infamous rule:
This is the NFL's reason it wasn't a catch:
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
I posted this on another tread. It belongs here. It aslo gives you the correct result as most people feel in their gut:
"OK. I'll bite.
I still don't understand why it wasn't a catch. And a TD.
Read the rule again: "he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground". You do know that both of the receiver's feet his butt plus both knees hit the turf while he had grasp of the ball in his extended hand? Player is down when a knee hits the ground. Look at the replay. BOTH knees AND butt hit the ground; CJ had possession AND control at that time. It's only after that when he brought his hand down and slammed the ground that the ball popped out. Too late. He HAD CONTROL AFTER HE TOUCHED THE GROUND. The officials got the call wrong and everybody just went along with it.
Now you could say that he was bobbling the ball as he was coming down and did not have control. But I don't think that that was the case, nor was that the ruling: He caught the ball with both hands, both feet down, switch the ball to one hand with a firm grasp, knees hit the ground, ball in control, play over. THEN the hand with ball firmly in grasp hits the ground and ground causes a fumble.
It was legitimately a TD UNDER THE RULES as written. The Lions got robbed."
Originally posted by Tigerlaw:Originally posted by Rsrkshn:Originally posted by Tigerlaw:Originally posted by zozell:
I think the main difference between those two plays is this:
On Gores play, his feet work planted on the ground when he made the catch. Once he caught it and he had posession, it was a TD.
On Johnsons play he caught it in the air, and therefore needed to maintain possession throughout the entire process of catching the ball in order for it to be a catch.
That's what someone explained to me at least. I think it's bs though. Detroit clearly should have been 1-0 today.
I agree with this explanation.
The rule that comes into play is only invoked when you go to the ground. Gore never went down. He had the TD as soon as he had possession
Here is the infamous rule:
This is the NFL's reason it wasn't a catch:
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
I posted this on another tread. It belongs here. It aslo gives you the correct result as most people feel in their gut:
"OK. I'll bite.
I still don't understand why it wasn't a catch. And a TD.
Read the rule again: "he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground". You do know that both of the receiver's feet his butt plus both knees hit the turf while he had grasp of the ball in his extended hand? Player is down when a knee hits the ground. Look at the replay. BOTH knees AND butt hit the ground; CJ had possession AND control at that time. It's only after that when he brought his hand down and slammed the ground that the ball popped out. Too late. He HAD CONTROL AFTER HE TOUCHED THE GROUND. The officials got the call wrong and everybody just went along with it.
Now you could say that he was bobbling the ball as he was coming down and did not have control. But I don't think that that was the case, nor was that the ruling: He caught the ball with both hands, both feet down, switch the ball to one hand with a firm grasp, knees hit the ground, ball in control, play over. THEN the hand with ball firmly in grasp hits the ground and ground causes a fumble.
It was legitimately a TD UNDER THE RULES as written. The Lions got robbed."
This rule is an exception to your understanding that "a player is down when a knee hits the ground"
Your understanding of the catch rule is wrong. There is no instantaneous possession of the ball when your feet plus butt plus knees plus extended hand hit the turf.
CJ had to maintain possession "after" he touched the ground. But he also had to go to the ground first ("if a player goes to the grond"). You are trying to say he was done going to the ground before he completed the act.
It looks to me like he was palming the ball as he was spun to the ground. The problem he has is the ball popped out and it hit the ground before he recovered it. Therefore he failed to satisfy the rule requiring that "if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground"
There is nothing in the rules requiring him to bobble it as he is going down. It all depends on how the collision with the ground changes his possession.
Originally posted by Rsrkshn:Thats fine...can't have a discussion if we all group think
I disagree.
Originally posted by Rsrkshn:Could you identify them in your reply?
You make a couple of conclusory, self serving and vague statements.
Originally posted by Rsrkshn:The exception is INHERENT when you have a rule that gives different criteria for a specific condition. If this rule wasn't an exception we wouldn't need it. This is a fairly basic point you need to understand before we go any further. There is no point even responding to the rest of your arguments if you can't grasp this.
Where does it say that: "This rule is an exception to your understanding that 'a player is down when a knee hits the ground'"? On the contrary the statement in the rule: "whether in the field of play or the end zone" clearly implies that the interpretation is supposed to be unformily applied without exception.
Originally posted by SFCH3DDERZ:
i remember Chad 85 have an overturned touchdown against us a while back because of this rule. he didnt complete the catch or something.
Originally posted by Kalen49ers:
Dumbest rule ever, should have been a TD.